Hugh Pickens continues: Army has a lengthy list of requirements. Among them, it wants a handgun with an adjustable grip that can easily fit large or small hands. That way, shooters don't have to adjust their grip mid-fight to operate hard-to-reach buttons or levers. The gun should accommodate sights that make it easier to shoot in low light. It should have a rail on which soldiers can easily attach additional equipment, like infrared pointers. The military also wants a gun that can be equipped with a suppressor, which muffles the sound of gunshots. Beretta intends to enter a new pistol called the APX into the competition. The new gun is a major engineering departure from the M9. It has a polymer frame like more recent handguns and can meet the Army's other requirements. Beretta has publicly complained that the government never formally requested efforts to improve its M9, which the company said is a standard procedure for upgrading platforms. "If you look at the history for a variety of weapons, you'll find all along we'll have used spiral development, product improvement. Where was the requirement they notify prime contractor with an opportunity to fix the problem?" says Howard Yellen, a military adviser for Beretta.

I have a Kimber too, but the M9 is arguably a better firearm in every way but the trigger. It probably would have made more sense to adopt the Browning Hi-Power way back when IMO, but that's water under the bridge. The 1911 has a bunch of hardly unique but still annoying problems from which most modern firearm designs don't suffer. Having to customize a new MSH or safety for every different 1911 is a bit stupid in this day and age.

I'm not sure why they don't just switch to a Glock in.45. Cheap, durable, repairable, cost-effective, and very reliable.

The importance of the sidearm is decreasing in warfare, so if you're at the point where you need to use one, you'd probably rather have.45. Being able to carry more ammunition for a pistol doesn't seem like it would be the concern it once was.

They're big concerns with the 1911, too. Even a commander-style pistol is still plenty heavy. And the 1911 has extra stuff to go wrong, especially if you load it up with an extra safety as Kimber does (along with many others.)

I'm not sure why they don't just switch to a Glock in.45. Cheap, durable, repairable, cost-effective, and very reliable.

Well, they cited the issue of fitting the hands of smaller shooters, so in the modern day none of these firearms are really applicable. They should probably be looking at a SIG.

The importance of the sidearm is decreasing in warfare, so if you're at the point where you need to use one, you'd probably rather have.45.

H&K M&P.45, then. The trigger is considered to be not that great, but there are mods that improve it, so perhaps with a little revision it would make a nice piece. Three grip sizes, external extractor. However, they're going to want to stick with 9mm because of the cost consideration, and the modern style of never using one bullet when five will do.

Basically, the FBI standardized on 9mm instead of.45 ACP for various reasons. They then got into a shootout with armored criminals and "learned" what everyone already knew: 9mm doesn't have enough energy for serious work.

They should have picked the 45 in the first place, but rather than admit that they chose wrong, they invented a shitty new cartridge for political reasons. Many police departments followed their lead because they didn't know any better and assumed that the FBI had developed a better round.

Because of this, most law enforcement agencies were, for decades, stuck with a low energy 10mm-short round with excessive pressure that wears guns out prematurely and is needlessly painful to train with.

Today, it is almost random. Lots of departments around here aren't even standardized, but let the officer choose 9mm, 40 or 45. This isn't as crazy as it sounds. Each squad car has an M-4 between the front seats that, in most situations, would make an appearance long before the inability to share pistol magazines became a problem.

Against armored criminals, nothing short of special armor-piercing handgun loads or rifle shots will penetrate. The actual muzzle energy of a 9mm versus a.45, and the sectional density between the two, is extremely minimal. One does about as good as the other. Type IIA armor would protect from either round - and that is pretty low-end body armor.

If you really want a "man stopper/armored killer" handgun load, you need a hot-load.44 magnum. Or nearly any rifle. In reality, there is very little difference between a.45 and a 9mm; both are rendered ineffective by low grade body armor.

As a trauma surgeon I have kept a tally of all the GSWs that I and my partners took care of.In the past 5 years we managed to save greater than 75% of people shot with a 9mm.Guess what, survivors from a.45? We have less than 4%And for the record the absolute numbers are statistically significant.I don't want to divulge any more details.I own a G21 Gen 4

The FBI had standardized on.38 special and got their asses kicked in the infamous "Miami shootout".

The FBI turned to S&W who worked with Norma to develop the 10mm round which got put in the S&W 10xx series of autoloaders, sharing the same frame as the 45xx series of.45s.

The full-power Norma 10mm was hella stopping power, but it was unpopular with most women and some men due to size and recoil. The original Norma loads were close to.41 Magnum power. I handload both cartridges and believe this i

Too heavy, not enough rounds, clunky as fuck. They CAN and DO jam no matter what the 1911 fanbois say.

I'll avoid the flame-bait to address a couple of things:

weight is relative, and it ain't *that* heavy. The "clunky" bit needs a more specific angle... clunky in what way?

As for the jamming, yeah - if you buy a cheap knock-off brand and then use shitty reloads (or ultra-cheap factory rounds) that aren't properly set for headspace, it will most certainly jam - that's guaranteed in damned near every semi-auto pistol in existence.

(I reload my rounds, and am religious about length. I also ground down the feedram

glock has fat grip. yes, I have one (17). I also don't like the extreme variability in weight between the gun fully loaded and when it gets near empty, but then I used to shoot in competition and combat use bigger group sizes not so much an issue

I once talked with a law enforcement officer who was deeply involved in choosing the next sidearm that a major city's police department would be carrying, and he said it really came down to two choices for them:

If you want durable and reliable, you go with a Sig Sauer.If you want durable, reliable, and light, you go with a Glock.

Re: 1911... Gotta agree on the safety, but most of the unique problems can be mitigated. For instance, the too-narrow-for-most-folks grip can be bolstered with decent grip pads. The 'damn those rubber spring grommets wear out too fast' issue is fixed with polyurethane ones (or do what I do and just double-up the number of grommets used - lasts longer, softens the recoil, and it doesn't give you that little jitter/jarring effect on the slide return that polyurethane seems to present).

Re: 1911... Gotta agree on the safety, but most of the unique problems can be mitigated. For instance, the too-narrow-for-most-folks grip can be bolstered with decent grip pads. The 'damn those rubber spring grommets wear out too fast' issue is fixed with polyurethane ones (or do what I do and just double-up the number of grommets used - lasts longer, softens the recoil, and it doesn't give you that little jitter/jarring effect on the slide return that polyurethane seems to present).

Tangent-time: I love using the.45 ACP hand-cannon, especially when compared to the (IMBO shitty little) 9mm Glock-style pistols... it may carry less rounds (that can be mitigated a little with a 10-round extended magazine), but it's drop-easy to disassemble, made of solid metal, has few moving parts to worry over, puts up with a ton of abuse, and still maintains a fair degree of accuracy. It's also way easier to customize (for instance, lightening the trigger w/o buying a kit to do it, grind-polish the feed-ramp for smoother loading of reloads, different springs for better recoil response, vented barrels, etc). Finally, I can get parts for it for next to nothing at most gun shows (e.g. a new barrel, grips, recoil mechanisms, etc).

** FWIW I have a Springfield and an ancient Colt (the latter is an heirloom Army-issue from WWII)

I like my "shitty little" Glock-type 9mm. Except in my case it's a 9mm Sig. Never had any issues, it's light, has rail on it for my laser, and was nice and cheap at just over $300. In my opinion the guy walking around with the 1911 prominently displayed on his hip is no different than the 50 year old guy who commutes to work in the brand new Porsche: they want people to see it and they probably never will (or have the skill to) use it for what it was designed for. That being said, I am really jealous ab

What was it, sixty bullets to hit the Asian woman in a pickup truck they misidentified as their black male 'cop killer' suspect last year? And that was someone who wasn't even shooting at them. Nine innocent bystanders they shot while firing dozens of bullets at one guy who was shooting at them last year or the year before?

Field stripping a 1911 vs field stripping a Glock --- Glock is easier by far. I imagine other modern pistols would try to be similarly easy. (And yes, I'm aware we're also talking about the US military that uses the M4, but small gains here and there add up.)

The 1911 comes out to a few more parts when field stripped, but I honestly don't find it harder to field strip. In some ways its easier IMHO because you don't have to pull the trigger, and sometimes it's frustrating to pull the Glock slide back just the right amount to take tension of the takedown lever without the striker cocking.

Don't get me wrong I wouldn't field the 1911 either despite being a big fan of it (I've got a Glock and 3 1911's), but field stripping it isn't bad at all.

Seriously, people: infantry combat is STILL one of those old-fashioned things where size and strength are really fucking important. You're not going to be able to design a smaller, lighter gun for petite little hands that ALSO has (as the rest of the article explains is needed badly) an increased stopping-power (which is primarily about the kinetic energy striking the target).

"Finesse" all the Ranger tests you want, but "average woman A" will not perform as well in combat as "average man B".* This is just another example of how/why.

* that said, there are a crapton of wastrels, layabouts, and good-for-nothings in the lower bracket of the male bell curve that will be outperformed by exceptional women because the women have the mental attitude necessary to be successful, which can get you a long way.

Doesn't matter whether women are in the front lines. If they're in combat zones, they need weapons they can shoot... it's not like the bad guys will play nice and only attack the guys in the front lines.

Support needs a hand gun to be usable by all of the army not just guys with big hands. Remember one of the requests is to add a rail to the handgun so it can support accessories like a light, laser sights, etc. Currently special forces have specialized hanguns for this purpose but those are not used by the regular army.

He's not sexist. I spent almost 10 years in the Marine Corps in a combat MOS. I can tell you first hand you man up or you shut up. The military doesn't need to cater to everyone. People need to learn how to use the tools. No one babied me or the thousands of other Marines I served with. We were expected to learn the tools of the trade, service rifle and handgun, as well as some crew served weapons like M249 SAW and M60, Mk19, as well as others. There were some small male Marines who had some issues with the

It means that the very elite of female soccer players at the peak of their skill and fitness, loose to male players who are still developing physically and have less technical experience.. Heck even the williams sisters have lost to a male player ranked above 200.

Very few elite women can compete with (below) average men in most physical activities. Being a vet myself, I've seen it due to lower female physical standards and higher incidence of injuries.

1) Of course not2) Infantry service calls for all kinds. A smaller body is an advantage in situations like stealth, low cover, small access, and generally present a smaller target to hit. Females also tend to have an advantage in situational awareness, target tracking, and not getting 'locked in' on targets the way men tend to. Sure women may not typically be as strong and will suffer in certain tasks but in others size/strength is a detriment and they will excel. Firing a hand gun is certainly not a si

A smaller body is an advantage in situations like stealth, low cover, small access, and generally present a smaller target to hit.

I think, you are describing special forces requirements, not infantry... But, yes, smaller can be useful. Just not often enough...

The element of surprise, which requires stealth, is advantageous in every engagement. Low cover happens any time you're out in the open.

Firing a hand gun is certainly not a situation where they should have issues.

Maybe. But it is still not sexist — contrary to your accusation — to point out, that the "smaller hand" mentioned in TFA and the write-up is an euphemism for "female hand".

Smaller hands is a euphemism for smaller hands. Some men have smaller hands, Asians have smaller hands, women have smaller hands, etc. Unless you're going to institute a hand size requirement for joining why would you want sections of your military not able to properly use their equipment?

I read the whole comment and this is not about SJWing. Comments like that are akin to saying female lions can't hunt because the male lions are bigger and stronger. There are situations where strength & size will matter on the battlefield but there will also be situations where those things are a detriment.

I get that reading the article is too much for/. , but not even reading the summary, that is inexcusable. The summary makes it very clear that the method to accommodate different hands is to have adjustable grips. Change at most 3 parts and have a slimmer or thicker grip.

I carry a sidearm with interchangable backstraps (the S&W M&P). You turn and pull out the locking pin (which can also be used to flip the sear disconnect for field stripping), pull off the current backstrap, insert the new one, and reinsert and twist the locking pin. That's 3 parts *total*, including both backstraps, 4 if you include all three standard backstraps in the count. The different backstrap options also include varying palm swell which make the gun fit your hand even better.

Yes women, but also Men who are smaller stature.One size fits most, means it usually doesn't fit anyone. Giving it the ability to be adjustable and fit in many hand types is much more useful. As very small population actually fall as average. Usually they are above or below average.

For the Army, the side arm is part of their job. As a key component of the Armed forces is well being armed.

You're not going to be able to design a smaller, lighter gun for petite little hands that ALSO has (as the rest of the article explains is needed badly) an increased stopping-power (which is primarily about the kinetic energy striking the target).

Rifle and shotgun rounds are for stopping power. Handguns are for when you don't have anything better. At that point, ability to get rounds on target trumps everything else. If you miss, it doesn't matter if you're shooting a.25 or a 10MM. You're better off with a gun that fits your hands and you can shoot properly than a hand cannon that you can't hit the ground in front you with.

Also, the difference between the major handgun rounds is negligible; military FMJ rounds will just never deliver the energy to

The only reason that women don't have to register for Selective Service like men do according to the Supreme Court is that women aren't in combat. If that changes then women will need to start registering.

Seriously, people: infantry combat is STILL one of those old-fashioned things where size and strength are really fucking important.

In an ideal world with clear and discernible front lines, you would place your best troops for combat there. Modern warfare these days is more about guerrilla forces. You will have people in combat that are not front line soldiers. Therefore you will have women in combat. Also you are neglecting the fact that not every male in the Army is 6 feet tall and 250 lbs of muscle. Some male soldiers are short and thin.

"Finesse" all the Ranger tests you want, but "average woman A" will not perform as well in combat as "average man B".* This is just another example of how/why.

What does that mean? Are you one of those that believe the conspiracy that the two female soldiers that passed the Ranger tests only because they were rigged? My understanding of modern combat is that with weapons like assault rifles and hollow point bullets, there is less importance on the physical size of the shooter. Even historically like in the Battle of Stalingrad, the Soviet Union used female snipers. No one questioned them about how their size and strength.

Really? And where is your proof that they did? By the way, there are no "pull-up" requirements for Ranger School. It is "chin-ups" and the requirement is 6 for the Ranger Physical Fitness Test (RPFT).

Second, I didn't realize the entirety of the Ranger School was chin-ups. I mean is that what they did for 61 days in Ranger School? That navigating, combat tactics, mission planning, and airborne have nothing to do with Ranger School. It was all chin-ups.

I wasn't aware that they were letting Average Men into the Rangers nowadays. And I've only seen reports from the mainstream press, but the women vying for Ranger spots do not seem particularly average, either.

This is how Gaston Glock got in the handgun market, a contract for a new sidearm for the Austrian military. I don't know handguns. All the makers have compact models now, and it seems like Glock took over the American handgun market some time ago. What do you think the chances are the US military switches to a polymer sidearm?

This is how Gaston Glock got in the handgun market, a contract for a new sidearm for the Austrian military. I don't know handguns. All the makers have compact models now, and it seems like Glock took over the American handgun market some time ago. What do you think the chances are the US military switches to a polymer sidearm?

Heh, what are the chances of you finding a manufacturer still using steel?

I think the US Military is not going to be able to avoid polymer, especially with the grip requirement, which is easily accomplished with a polymer frame (polymer-frame vendors have been offering different backstrap sizes for years now to accommodate various hand sizes).

Sounds like the Gen4 Glock 21 would be a good fit, or perhaps a G17/19 (9mm vs. 45 caliber depending on capacity, stopping power, and recoil control requirements). Th

Well Special Forces have used the USP MK 23 for a long time now which I believe is polymer. The main reason I suppose it has not been adopted is cost as it was specially designed for special forces and not cheap.

the actual model 1991 not as durable, not as safe, doesn't have the capacity, will jamb when dirty (I shot one in matches for years with standard 830fps 230gr hardball) and will rust under humid/corrosive conditions, and has a slide spring that will go flying.

Many modern guns solve these issues. M1911 a great gun of the 20th century, but progress has left it behind.

Reading the summary, it sounds like the army has looked at a Glock brochure and just listed everything there as their requirements.

Of course this is a military procurement so the requirements will change at the behest of vested interests until the gun is unsuitable for the dozens of new roles it's required to fill and many times the original estimated cost. Then it will be put into production and the soldiers will be forced to use them -- then the smart soldiers will just bring their own Glocks to work.

Reading the summary, it sounds like the army has looked at a Glock brochure and just listed everything there as their requirements.

Gee, and this sounds nothing like it did back in the 80s when the requirements read like a Beretta brochure.

By the time we're reading about the requirements, the model has likely already been designed, and possibly even chosen.

Glock had a hard time with requirements previously due to the lack of external safety, but that's a fairly easy design fix. Other vendors already have that, along with interchangable grip backstraps and rails. Honesty, I can think of half a dozen current models that fit the description from various vendors.

I think the real decision will come down to them accepting a polymer frame design or not, since a good portion of the shooting industry chose to follow Gaston down that path.

The really wonderful thing about a military-issue sidearm is that if it breaks, you can turn it in to the armory and they'll hand you a new one. Won't work so well if you're using a non-issue weapon....

20 round standard mag and modern as all hell. The small caliber/high velocity ammo (same principle as the 5.56 AR rifles) hits just as hard if not harder than.45 ACP/9mm/whatever if you take into account that the military cannot use hollowpoints.

Does it fragment on impact like the 5.56? How about body armour penetration and penetration of glass windshields and car bodies? From what i was told the 5.56 was a bit small to stop car and truck suicide bombers due to lack of penetration.

I've seen a number of issues with guns in small hands. It really isn't the gun's fault. There is only so much you can do to fit a gun into small hands, and after that, you're compromising the gun.

IMHO it would be MUCH better to have a couple different models, standard issue, Small hands Issue and large caliber issue. Being outside the 95% in size, I know that "one size fits all" approach is woefully inadequate.

While I'm not intimately familiar with firearms, I have shot just about everything once; I tend to agree. Sounds like Hollywood influence. So many people pooh-pooh the 9mm as if it's a.22, or even a BB gun, but I'll tell you, I don't ever want to get shot with a 9mm, anywhere.. I wouldn't even want to get shot with a.22 for that matter. I'm pretty sure either would compromise my ability to ambulate or attack someone, or at least distract me big time, unless maybe I was on PCP or something whack.

The problem is that you are (presumably) a normal human not totally wound up on bad cocaine, worse amphetamines and some Krokodil along with a fifth of really bad whiskey. Those people need rhinoceros-class weapons to stop effectively.

the best hollow point rounds in either 45 or 9mm are very close in stopping power (look up sources collecting years of actual shooting stats such as Ayoob), doesn't matter for civilian or cop which one is used.

The standard solid FMJ bullet was/is manufactured in accordance with rules in the Geneva Convention, IIRC. The other reason the military uses them is that a bullet passing through one enemy soldier still has the potential of hitting another enemy soldier before its energy is spent, whereas a by-now-mushroomed hollow-point will have expended most of its kinetic energy while still inside the first guy.

Agreed on the hollow-points otherwise though... they do come pretty close to providing actual stopping power.

A major reason for why 9x19 Parabellum continues to be used from a military perspective is that many opponents will be wearing light body armour and/or helmets, and 9x19 Parabellum, and 9x19 has far superior penetration than.45 ACP. The US Army bought up as much of old Swedish m39/b ammo that they could for SMG's and handguns for that purpose. Cut-through view of the m39/b bullet: http://www.amkat.se/Images/9x1... [amkat.se]

As the joke among military paramedics go: If your patient was hit outside the plate with 9x19,

Really? Twice? What's the muzzle energy of a 9mm an.45 ACP? About 383 lb-ft and 416 lb-ft, respectively [wikipedia.org]. That's not even a 10% differential, let alone a 100%. The fact you claimtwice the energy proves you don't understand the situation - at all.

back in the day everyone used to joke that the baretta's didn't have any stopping power and if you shot someone with it you would only make them angry

This is a commentary about the caliber of the bullet, the joke is often directed toward Beretta because they are known for their 9mm platforms. It's actually a very serious problem which is exacerbated in a war-zone by the Hague convention which bans JHP rounds. The 9mm is a market failure IMHO, it's too small for it's muzzle velocity making over penetration a problem; even with a hollow point there might not be enough time for the bullet to expand. It's good enough for personal defense because it's lightwe

The German and American officer meet on the field. The German officer pulls out his Walther P38 and shoots the American. The American pulls out his 1911, kills the German, picks up the P38 as a souvenir, and limps off to the field hospital.

I remember a Korea vet complaining that the.30 carbine he was issued with couldn't kill a bad guy if he hit them with a full magazine of bullets, and would break if he tried to beat them to death with it.

I remember a Korea vet complaining that the.30 carbine he was issued with couldn't kill a bad guy if he hit them with a full magazine of bullets, and would break if he tried to beat them to death with it.

There was a reason why the carbine was issued mostly to mortar crews, officers, and support personnel by the Marines in WWII. Didn't really have the best stopping power, especially compared to an M1 Garand or a Thompson.

Short of innovations like those Glock brought to the table over three decades ago, the semi automatic pistol has not changed much in the last century, and the previous standard service pistol of the US military served for almost three quarters of a century (and STILL is the preferred sidearm of those who kill people and break things for a living). The standard issue rifle has been so for more than half a century.

Definitely - I'm sure a Maker *could* make pretty fantastic guns if they really tried, given some of the other engineering feats Alvin has pulled off, but being that their prime purpose is destruction of life, I feel like that'd really be more The Unmaker's territory.

As would I. I wouldn't mind one of the m1's korea tried to return a couple years back but the Obama admistration refused to take.

I think the cheapest m1 you can get from the CMP is around 600 for a rack grade compared to around $200 for a rack grade a few years back. No one is going to be using a 70 year old m1 in street crime as the Obama administration alleged, its way to big to conceal